ArticleIrish journal of medical science2022
Timing of treatment of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: are the goals set in international guidelines achievable?
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive factors for pre-intervention rebleeding in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2022Pooled it
- Study on the relationship between different operation time and postoperative complications in patients with cerebral hemorrhage.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Risk factor synergism in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a cross-sectional study.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Article
- Outcomes following poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a prospective observational study.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsInternational guidelines emphasise the importance of securing ruptured cerebral aneurysms within 48-72 h of ictus. We assessed the timing of treatment of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) referred to a national neurosurgical centre. MATERIALS AND
methodsAnalysis of a prospective database of patients with aSAH admitted between 1st of February 2016 and 29th of February 2020 was performed. The timing to treatment was expressed in days and analysed in three ways: ictus to treatment, ictus to referral and referral to treatment. ORs with 95% CI were calculated for aneurysm treatment within 24, 48 and 72 h for good grade (WFSN 1-3) and poor grade (WFNS 4-5) cohorts separately.
resultsOf a total of 538 patients with aSAH, the aneurysm was secured in 312 (58%) within 24 h and in 398 (74%) within 48 h of ictus. Securing the aneurysm within 48 h of ictus was achieved in 89% (395/444) of patients who were referred within 24 h of ictus, but in only 3.2% (3/94) who were referred > 24 h after ictus. Poor grade patients (WFNS 4-5) were more likely than good grade patients (WFNS 1-3) to be referred to neurosurgery within 48 h of ictus (OR 22.87, 95% CI 3.14-166.49, p = 0.0020) and for their aneurysm to be secured within 48 h (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.06-2.98, p = 0.0297) of ictus. Ictus to referral delay was highest in WFNS grade 1 patients.
conclusionsIn centres with 7 day per week provision of interventional neuroradiology and vascular neurosurgery, the majority of patients with aSAH can be treated within the timeframes recommended by international guidelines and this applies to all grades of aSAH. However, delays still occur in a significant proportion of patients and this particularly applies to delays in presentation and diagnosis in good grade patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.